2025 Club Ratings

[Spidey]

First one known, Keighley have 0 points as they submitted it late

 

[Yorks Tim]

Given that Keighley were never in the running for one of those new SL places and promotion to a re-jigged Championship is no longer of relevence, exactly how important is this to the club?

I've lost touch with the significance of IMG points at this level so please excuse my ignorance!

 

 

[OriginalMrC]

56 minutes ago, Spidey said:

First one known, Keighley have 0 points as they submitted it late

 

Yet again Keighley have been denied entry into Superleague by the powers that be. They need to keep going on about it for the next 30 years

Edited October 5 by OriginalMrC

[Spidey]

19 minutes ago, Yorks Tim said:

Given that Keighley were never in the running for one of those new SL places and promotion to a re-jigged Championship is no longer of relevence, exactly how important is this to the club?

I've lost touch with the significance of IMG points at this level so please excuse my ignorance!

 

 

Ratings impact central funding.  So they’ll be at the bottom level if that now

[Dunbar]

The first paragraph:

The Keighley Cougars have today expressed deep disappointment following the Rugby Football League’s decision to award the club zero points in the 2025 IMG grading process — a result of a submission being less than 24 hours late.

This suggests that they would have got more points if their submission had been more than 24 hours late.

[Damien]

I cant help but think Keighley submitted late to achieve this outcome so they can moan.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I cant help but think Keighley submitted late to achieve this outcome so they can moan.

They can get an independent review.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

I cant help but think Keighley submitted late to achieve this outcome so they can moan.

Given Batley submitted their's a week late last year and had it marked why would they think that?

[Luke HKR]

3 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Given Batley submitted their's a week late last year and had it marked why would they think that?

Was going to say, that's the issue. The inconsistency. 

[Angelic Cynic]

4 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

Yet again Keighley have been denied entry into Superleague by the powers that be. They need to keep going on about it for the next 30 years

Try as I might,I cannot find any reference to Super League or to 30 years in either the website or Twitter account, on the decision made by the RFL.

I don't have an emoji to demonstrate my unrivalled emotion at that situation. 

[The 4 of Us]

No excuses and winging about it does themselves no favours. 

[Griff]

Well, it would be nice if the RFL would mark Keighley's homework to give them an idea of where they stood but, whether marked or not, they won't be in Superleague next year.

To be honest, I don't see why they shouldn't at least get points for performance on the field.  There are league tables publicly available.

[Dunbar]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The first paragraph:

The Keighley Cougars have today expressed deep disappointment following the Rugby Football League’s decision to award the club zero points in the 2025 IMG grading process — a result of a submission being less than 24 hours late.

This suggests that they would have got more points if their submission had been more than 24 hours late.

 

3 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Given Batley submitted their's a week late last year and had it marked why would they think that?

So, I was right. It wasn't late enough. 

[Eddie]

There’s a deadline, you need to meet it, it’s not hard. 

[mattcasfan]

1 hour ago, The 4 of Us said:

No excuses and winging about it does themselves no favours. 

Or perhaps the RFL made a change to their previously published rules only 1 month prior.. big question is did they communicate it..

The screenshot is from December 24. Everything else on the published changes to the grading criteria for 2025 was reflected in the handbook except this part. 

Did the RFL notify clubs? Did they make a mistake? Did Keighley just miss the notification. 

I think I'm pretty on it when it comes to IMG and I'll admit to not spotting this change. It wouldnt surprise me if Keighley didn't either. 

Certainly would love to know how we went from a 0.25 reduction in Dec 24 to a big fat 0 a month later. 

[The 4 of Us]

10 minutes ago, mattcasfan said:

Or perhaps the RFL made a change to their previously published rules only 1 month prior.. big question is did they communicate it..

The screenshot is from December 24. Everything else on the published changes to the grading criteria for 2025 was reflected in the handbook except this part. 

Did the RFL notify clubs? Did they make a mistake? Did Keighley just miss the notification. 

I think I'm pretty on it when it comes to IMG and I'll admit to not spotting this change. It wouldnt surprise me if Keighley didn't either. 

Certainly would love to know how we went from a 0.25 reduction in Dec 24 to a big fat 0 a month later. 

They’re grownups. They’re responsible. Read the documents. Don’t rely upon TotalRL to inform you.

[mattcasfan]

36 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

They’re grownups. They’re responsible. Read the documents. Don’t rely upon TotalRL to inform you.

I'd have sympathy with them if there was no communication from the RFL about the change. 

I'm pretty sure they would also have some sort of legal case if they just changed things on a whim without notifying clubs. 

I've asked their owners on twitter what happened seeing as they liked my post about it. I wouldn't expect an answer but seeing how vocal they generally are you might think they would respond if something really was amiss. If they remain silent then maybe it was a bit of a mess up on their part. 

I'm not defending them, being late isn't anyone else's fault but theirs.

Just floating the possibility that something dodgy has happened & if so, the RFL should be held accountable. 

[Click]

8 minutes ago, mattcasfan said:

I'd have sympathy with them if there was no communication from the RFL about the change. 

I'm pretty sure they would also have some sort of legal case if they just changed things on a whim without notifying clubs. 

I've asked their owners on twitter what happened seeing as they liked my post about it. I wouldn't expect an answer but seeing how vocal they generally are you might think they would respond if something really was amiss. If they remain silent then maybe it was a bit of a mess up on their part. 

I'm not defending them, being late isn't anyone else's fault but theirs.

Just floating the possibility that something dodgy has happened & if so, the RFL should be held accountable. 

Why?

You have a deadline, meet it.

Of course it was a mess up on their part, if they submitted it on time there would be zero punishments, focusing on how the RFL has perhaps changed their punishments doesn't take away responsibility from Keighley for failing to put their work in on time.

[mattcasfan]

25 minutes ago, Click said:

Why?

You have a deadline, meet it.

Of course it was a mess up on their part, if they submitted it on time there would be zero punishments, focusing on how the RFL has perhaps changed their punishments doesn't take away responsibility from Keighley for failing to put their work in on time.

Why? Because they would be expecting just a 0.25 reduction rather than ungraded. 

You cant just change things without notifying people (if thats what happened).

I think I was pretty clear when I said I'm not defending them for being late but feel free to skim over that part. 

[Magicman]

Img chart posted by Aaron bower on x 

https://x.com/AaronBower/status/1974853399947661412?s=19

[LeeF]

7 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Given Batley submitted their's a week late last year and had it marked why would they think that?

They weren’t ranked though. Nor were Whitehaven who also didn’t submit last time

[N2022]

1 hour ago, mattcasfan said:

I'd have sympathy with them if there was no communication from the RFL about the change. 

I'm pretty sure they would also have some sort of legal case if they just changed things on a whim without notifying clubs. 

I've asked their owners on twitter what happened seeing as they liked my post about it. I wouldn't expect an answer but seeing how vocal they generally are you might think they would respond if something really was amiss. If they remain silent then maybe it was a bit of a mess up on their part. 

I'm not defending them, being late isn't anyone else's fault but theirs.

Just floating the possibility that something dodgy has happened & if so, the RFL should be held accountable. 

Changed things on a whim? That doesn't sound like them ...

[The 4 of Us]

1 hour ago, mattcasfan said:

I'd have sympathy with them if there was no communication from the RFL about the change. 

I'm pretty sure they would also have some sort of legal case if they just changed things on a whim without notifying clubs. 

I've asked their owners on twitter what happened seeing as they liked my post about it. I wouldn't expect an answer but seeing how vocal they generally are you might think they would respond if something really was amiss. If they remain silent then maybe it was a bit of a mess up on their part. 

I'm not defending them, being late isn't anyone else's fault but theirs.

Just floating the possibility that something dodgy has happened & if so, the RFL should be held accountable. 

The handbook is dated January 2025. 
 

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Rugby League Grading Handbook_2025FINAL.pdf

[mattcasfan]

26 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

The handbook is dated January 2025. 
 

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Rugby League Grading Handbook_2025FINAL.pdf

I know? My previous posts already referred to the difference of the doc in Dec 24 to the handbook in Jan 25. 

My questions are why did this change and were clubs notified.

The only public information of changes to the criteria into 2025 was the Dec 24 doc. Quite clearly, something changed between then and the doc on January. Everything else seems to have remained the same. 

 

[The 4 of Us]

13 minutes ago, mattcasfan said:

I know? My previous posts already referred to the difference of the doc in Dec 24 to the handbook in Jan 25. 

My questions are why did this change and were clubs notified.

The only public information of changes to the criteria into 2025 was the Dec 24 doc. Quite clearly, something changed between then and the doc on January. Everything else seems to have remained the same. 

 

Sorry, yes see what you mean. This refers at 3.7 to the original amendment but struggling to find anything that changes it to that which appears in the booklet. 

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Club IMG Grading Criteria 2025.pdf

Looked here but guess what !

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/about-the-rfl/the-rfl-council